The undersigned, national and international civil society organisations, address you in solidarity with the Aymara communities of Southern Peru, who have organised to defend their natural wealth, their territory, their water and the health of their people against the various mining projects established in the region.

We are disturbed to note a growing tendency towards deepening criminalisation. The abusive imposition of penal processes against social organisation leaders and communities via a distorted use of criminal offenses (such as aggravatedextortion and Indirect Perpetration) is particularly worrying. Such wilful misinterpretation of the law seeks to equate social organisations with criminal groups and their spokespeople with instigators of crime. As such it represents a grave attack on human rights; on freedom of expression and on social mobilisation.

THE FACTS:

We refer here specifically to the charges related to the socio-environmental conflict known as the ‘Aymarazo’ of 2011. During said conflict, communities from the district of Puno took action against the Santa Ana mine, a project under the ownership of Canadian mining corporation, Bear Creek. The protest articulated demands to cancel the project, due to the risks of contamination to water associated with the operation (including risks to Lake Titicaca which straddles Peru and Bolivia). It also called out the lack of consultation of communities, the illegality of the project as well as the lack of transparency and bad faith in which the corporation acted in relation to the communities. The protest resulted in a fierce repression at the hands of the Peruvian State and, ultimately, in the cancelation of the project. However, the Prosecution of Puno initiated criminal processes against the main spokespersons, which resulted in Walter Aduviri – the main spokesperson – being charged with 7 years in prison and fined 2 million Soles (approximately US$600,000, the equivalent of 2,500 minimum wages in Peru).

In December 2017, the tribunals of Puno ratified the sentence against Aduviri and ordered his detention. Upon learning of the ruling, Aduviri went into hiding. His defense presented a Cassation Appeal to overturn the sentence, which was accepted in January 2018. Aduviri’s case is currently being considered by the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru.

We consider that, if the Supreme Court ratify the sentence against Aduviri, a dangerous judicial precedent will be set that would undermine the defense of human rights and of territory in Peru. This concern relates to the fact that Aduviri stands accused of being an ‘Indirect Perpetrator’ behind the alleged unrest that took place during the Aymarazo - in other words, of having ordered others to commit crimes on his behalf. Such a ruling would place others at risk of being considered as ‘Indirect Perpetrators’ regardless of any lack of material evidence and where the only ‘crime’ is that of being spokesperson for an organisation or community. Furthermore, during the process and because of a deeply racist attitude, Aduviri was denied indigenous rights owed to him as a member of the broader Aymara community. These special rights include, but are not limited to, the right to territory; to consultation; to identity and to autonomy. The judges ruled that, in Aduviri’s case, special indigenous rights could not be taken into account since he had undertaken a university education.

Because of these observations, the undersigned below state the following:

1.- We urge the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru to resolve Walter Aduviri’s case, taking into account internationally recognised rights of indigenous peoples, as upheld in binding international treaties that have been ratified by the Peruvian State. These treaties include the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Upon this legitimate legal basis, we consider that the sentence taken against Aduviri, who did nothing more than demand that the rights of the Aymaran people be respected, must be definitively overturned.

2.- We firmly reject the arbitrary use of penal figures such as ‘Indirect Perpetrator’ (used against former President Alberto Fujimori and Shining Path leader Abimael Guzman for violations of human rights) as a pretext for persecuting members of social organisations and of community members. We consider it to be of vital importance that the State respect the decision of communities to reject mining projects in their territory in legitimate defense of their rights and that this be exercised without fear of being subject to persecution or stigmatization.

3.- We demand that the transnational Bear Creek Mining Corporation and the mining corporations that are mainly concentrated in the South of Peru respect the rights and decisions of communities in relation to the Santa Ana project and of any other mining project in the country. International Civil Society Organisations are monitoring these cases, in solidarity with affected communities and the upholding of their rights.

We recognise that Walter Aduviri’s case is not an isolated one. Rather, it forms part of a pro-mining agenda in Peru. Another example of this architecture is the constant declaration of States of Emergency in mining zones. These States of Emergency suspend the most fundamental constitutional rights of the population, bringing with it political repression; criminalisation and the general stigmatization of social organisations and communities. As in Peru, across the continent, multinationals enter territories with the sole intention of converting common goods into financialised resources, leaving communities and ecosystems destroyed in their wake. Where there is resistance, the state systematically represses, imprisons and even creates the conditions for the assassination of defenders.

These multinational corporations also turn to international tribunals to sue countries for compensation when they feel that their profits have been put at risk in any way. In 2014, Following on from the Aymarazo, Bear Creek Mining Corporation sued Peru in the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) of the World Bank. The World Bank ruled in Bear Creek’s favour, ordering Peru to pay the transnational the sum of US$18.2 million. This amount, added to the interests and legal costs incurred by the Peruvian State, have totalled a skyrocketing US$37 million.

These facts reveal once again - and more urgently - the need to mobilise globally to pressure states to respect and enforce human rights and territory. It also echoes the importance of putting in place an internationally binding legal framework so that transnational corporations can be made accountable for their actions around the world, bringing to an end the impunity that keeps them and their narrow interests safe.

Signatures

For more information see Human Rights and Environment – DHUMA, PUNO, PERU